In 1863, led by a group of staunch Unionists, the western
counties of Virginia seceded from their mother commonwealth to form
a new state. This was not the first attempt to separate the
mountanious area from the piedmont and the tidewater country.
Patriotism, however, played little part that time. Less than a
century previous a group of entrepreneurs and land speculators from
the eastern seaboard and England had endeavored to establish a new
colony, Vandalia, in the frontier region south and east of the Ohio
River. The boundaries of the proposed province closely match those
of the present state of West Virginia. Their efforts ended in
failure, but that was not for a lack of trying.

Since the country was sparsely populated, the inspiration for
separation had to come from elsewhere. Some of the leading
merchants and politicians in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and England
hoped to profit from their efforts. Printer and philosopher
Benjamin Franklin, his son Sir William, governor of New Jersey,
Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Northern Department Sir
William Johnson, his deputy George Croghan, merchants George Morgan
and John Baynton, and lawyer and Speaker of the Pennsylvania
Assembly Joseph Galloway all interested themselves in the project.
The leading lights of the movement, though, were members of a
prominent and prosperous Quaker mercantile family, the Whartons of
Philadelphia.1

The Wharton males, guided and inspired by patriarch Joseph,
Senior (1707-76), had risen in two generations from relative
poverty to riches in local trade, the export-import business, and
sponsoring small industries. His sons Thomas 1730/31-1784), Joseph,
Junior (1732-1816), and Charles (1744-1838) profited as merchants.
Samuel (1732-1800) became a partner in Baynton and Wharton, later
Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, a firm interested in trading overseas
and with the Indians in the west. A younger brother, Isaac
(1745-1808), allied himself with Thomas and progressively became a
successful insuranceman and banker. All held interests in common,
particularly the accumulation of excess capital to invest in
wide-ranging enterprises with emphasis on land bought cheap and
sold dear.2 In many respects the story of Vandalia
centers on the Whartons and their moves and countermoves to obtain
approval for the new colony from the British crown.

The Whartons had initially invested in real estate in the
vicinity of Philadelphia, but had rapidly expanded and extended
their speculations. Thomas in particular had with various partners
purchased land in the frontier regions of Virginia, New York, and
Pennsylvania. His Virginia ventures included tracts in what is now
the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. All these efforts failed to
find a profit. In some cases, as in Virginia and New York, Indian
troubles and depredations and the advent of the War of American
Independence discouraged prospective buyers here and abroad.
Clouded titles further confused the issue. In the Wyoming Valley of
Pennsylvania, for instance, courts decided disputed claims in favor
of squatters on the land rather than to absentee
speculators.3 The fight for Vandalia began with the
failure of the Illinois Company.

The end of the French and Indian War and the resulting Treaty of
Paris in 1763 opened vast areas of formerly enemy-held territory to
British exploitation. Traders such as Baynton, Wharton and Morgan
foresaw immense profits to be gained from supplying various Indian
nations and the British garrisons along the Mississippi River.
Samuel and his partners together with Croghan and some frontier
merchants from Lancaster formed the "grand Illinois Venture," which
by 1766 evolved into the Illinois Company. The investors included
four Whartons (Joseph, Senior; Joseph, Junior; Samuel, and Thomas),
George and John Morgan, John Baynton, William Franklin, George
Croghan, and Sir William Johnson. For additional capital they later
invited some Englishmen to participate, a deal which paved the way
for future joint Anglo-American speculative collaborations. An
interested bystander was Benjamin Franklin, then Pennsylvania's
agent in London. The investors attempted to use his influence in
governmental circles to obtain the necessary approval. Franklin
readily cooperated. He had already tentatively agreed to join
Samuel and Baynton in the purchase of two large tracts in newly
acquired Quebec. In all, the Illinois Company applied for a grant
of 1,400,000 acres to be effected upon the establishment of a civil
government. This effort collapsed for several reasons. Loss of
trade goods and overinvestment forced Baynton, Wharton and Morgan
into receivership. The reluctance of British ministers to approve
large grants, however, proved to be the main cause. They also
feared that the resulting violations of the Proclamation Line of
1763, which limited settlements to the east of Allegheny Mountain,
would invite the Indians to renew fierce and bloody frontier wars.
Competing claims by other interested parties, mainly represented by
the Gratz family of Philadelphia and Lancaster, also confused
government agencies which took the easy way out by declining all
applications.4

The failure of the Illinois venture caused the Whartons and
their allies to seek their fortunes elsewhere. They grabbed at what
appeared to be a better opportunity, tying themselves to the
appeals of the "suffering traders." In 1754, during the opening
scenes of the French and Indian War, several traders, including
William Trent and Croghan, lost supplies to Indian raids. Trent, a
partner in Franks, Trent, Simons and Company, was a close associate
of the Gratzes. The natives repeated their seizures in 1763 when
Pontiac lured his followers to battle English settlers on the
frontier. Some of the material destroyed during the "conspiracy"
belonged to Baynton, Wharton and Morgan although the firm had
evidently only consigned goods to other traders. The victims of the
attacks sent Croghan to London in 1764 to seek compensation for
their losses. Croghan failed to interest the government in their
appeals, and he returned empty-handed.5

In February 1765 twenty-one parties petitioned Sir William
Johnson to convince the Six Nations to indemnify them for the
£80,- 862:12:05 (New York currency) in destroyed goods.
Samuel and his firm had already received the proxies of four of the
traders, and Trent represented the remainder. They and other
speculators soon convinced additional distressed men to sell their
shares at a discount to be paid when the Indians repaid them by
forfeiting some land. A complicated system of shares was devised
based on the value of each individual's losses. As in most cases
such as this, the speculator soon completely superceded the
original losers. Johnson assembled a meeting at Johnson Hall in
April at which time he placed the petition forcibly before the
sachems. He chose, however, to ignore the "sufferers" of 1754
because, as he later explained, the Indians destroyed their
property in time of war. On May 6 the chiefs agreed to concede some
lands to the traders, but nothing further resulted from the
conference. Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan remained optimistic of
"the Justice of Our Application" for the Indians "making Recompense
for their Robbry."6 The major steps for obtaining the
land came with the organization of the Indiana Company, the details
of which are vague, and the conference at Fort Stanwix in 1768.
Samuel Wharton with 16,628 shares was the major stockholder of the
new company. Other important shareholders included John Baynton
(8,530), Trent (7,427), and William Franklin
(5,399).7

On October 24, 1768, after some delays, Sir
William Johnson opened the meeting at Fort Stanwix. The seriousness
of the main issue - alterations to the Proclamation Line of 1763 -
merited attendance by Governor Franklin, Governor John Penn of
Pennsylvania and two members of his council, and Virginia's
commissioner Thomas Walker as well as the heads of the Indian
nations concerned, Croghan, Samuel, and Trent also participated.
Much about the proceedings remains a mystery since the majority of
the discussions were conducted in secret. The attendees, white and
Indian alike, agreed, however, on a new line to be established west
of the original demarcation. In the area of immediate concern, it
traversed from Fort Pitt down the Ohio River until it met the
Tennessee where it turned south./ The extent of the new area
authorizing white settlement far exceeded Johnson's instructions
and has caused his motives to be questioned. He may have linked
private ambitions with official duties. The chiefs listened to the
appeals made by Samuel and Trent, then acquiesced and ceded to the
"suffering traders" the tract which became known as Indiana. Its
boundaries (see sketch map, page 376) began on the

southerly side of the mouth of Little Kanawha Creek,
where it empties into the river Ohio, and running from thence south
east to the Laurel Hill, thence along the Laurel Hill until it
strikes the river Mononghela . . . . to the Southern boundary line
of . . . Pennsylvania, thence westerly . . . to the river Ohio,
thence down the said river . . . to the place of
beginning.8

The agreement with the Indians and the location of the grant
would have been impossible without the transfer of the proclamation
line to the Ohio River.

After the Indians had conceded the land, the company
stockholders decided to guarantee their interests by obtaining
consent from the British ministry. Since a personal representation
appeared to be the best method, they sent Samuel and Trent, the
spokesmen for the two main factions (the Whartons and the Gratzes)
within the company, to London to plead their case. Five of the most
interested, parties pledged their financial support. The personable
Samuel was the key man. All the members involved anticipated that
the visit would be short. Many would have reconsidered if they had
known that Trent would not return until 1775 and Samuel more than
three years later. Hopes ran high that the government would readily
approve the grant. Few could have predicted that an even larger
grant would be sought for the establishment of a new colony inland
of Virginia.9

Samuel departed Philadelphia sometime after February 1769,
carrying with him letters of introduction to English contacts.
William Franklin described him as "a gentleman of character &
abilities," informing William Strahan, an English publisher and
post office official, "You will like him." In London, Samuel
encountered a society which, though unfamiliar, delighted and
enticed him, one completely free from the Quaker surroundings in
which he was raised. Apparently shrewdly analysing his character,
Doctor Cadwalader Evans, an old family friend, recommended that
Benjamin Franklin "read a lecture to [him] on temperance" before
the "luxeries of London" infected him. Samuel became a stylish
hypochondriac, though enjoying excellent health, "dressed in rich
Silks," and took to wearing a "Sword &c. with as much ease, as
if He had always done it." Though the assumed foppishness created
some problems with the more conservative Trent, he became
recognized by many as an expert on the colonies. His wide range of
acquaintances impressed one visitor who remarked that Samuel had
introduced him "to some of the first families of this place" and
entertained him "with much Splendor."10 If Thomas, who
enjoyed his own lifestyle, for he and his brother Joseph were among
the wealthiest of the Philadelphians, had known of Samuel's
pretensions, he would have been disgusted with his brother's
un-Quaker-like affectation, not least because he was financing
Samuel in London and the latter's family in Philadelphia.

After their arrival in England, both Samuel and Trent decided
that any appeal to the government for Indiana would be fruitless.
Thus they did not even petition the Privy Council for the land.
Their reasoning could have been influenced by two considerations.
First, existent governmental opposition, even hostility, would
automatically deny any such application. Second, they may have
listened to Benjamin Franklin who, as he later said, advised Samuel
that the grant had been willingly given by the Indian nations as
sovereign governments. In his opinion, that legally sufficed, and
British ministerial sanction would thus be superfluous. Regardless,
the agents switched direction, and, upon the recommendation of
Thomas Walpole, Sir Robert's nephew and important member of
Commons, they decided to form a new company with English and
American investors to purchase a block of land south and east of
the Ohio River. This tract incorporated the area of Indiana. The
group, which now included Franklin as an active participant, became
known as the Walpole Associates, and in July they applied for a new
grant. Each member contributed five guineas to pay for what Samuel
described as "Clerkship."11

The new organization brought many changes. As the plan, or plot,
developed, Samuel and Franklin discarded many of the Americans
interested in Indiana. Most importantly, the omission of Baynton
and Morgan seriously split the partnership. Morgan later vowed that
henceforth he would contact Samuel strictly on business relating to
their firm. Although the roster of members included Croghan by
necessity, he had already forfeited some of the claims he gained at
Fort Stanwix. On December 10, 1768, he sold his share of Indiana to
Thomas Wharton and Joseph Galloway, each paying £450
(Pennsylvania currency).12

On December 27, 1769, the members of the Walpole Associates
convened at the Crown and Anchor Inn in London and organized the
Grand Ohio Company. Samuel proposed to purchase from the crown the
land which became known as Vandalia. He and his allies hoped to
establish a colony placed on the same footing with the old
provinces incorporating governmental organizations, a royal
governor, a legislature, courts, etc. At first the sponsors planned
to call it Pittsylvania in honor of William Pitt, but, to encourage
royal consent, they named it Vandalia for the queen who reputedly
was descended from the Germanic tribe. In England it is generally
known as the Walpole Grant. Representatives of the Illinois and
Indiana factions participated, and they agreed to cede Indiana to
the new company when the government approved the new colony.
Indeed, for all practicality, the members of the older companies
hedged their bets to preserve their interests. Within six months,
George Mercer asserted to incorporate the rival Ohio Company of
Virginia (he was its representative in England and his endeavors
had been unsuccessful) into the enterprise for two of the
seventy-two shares. The land requested, more than two million
acres, the greater part of the present state of West Virginia (see
sketch map page 376) was vast. The boundaries were delineated as
follows.

Beginning on the South side of the River Ohio, opposite
the mouth of Sioto, thence Southernly through the Pass in the
Onasioto [variously spelled] Mountains to the South Side of said
mountains . . . Northeasterly to the Fork of the Great Kenhawa made
by the junction of Green Briar and New Rivers thence along the said
Green Briar River . . . termination of the North Easterly branch
thereof, thence Easterly to the Allegheny Mountain to Lord
Fairfax's line . . . to the Spring head of the North branch of the
River Powtomack thence along the Western boundary line . . . of
Maryland to the Southern Boundary line of . . . Pennsylvania . . .
along the said Southern Boundary line . . . until the same shall
strike the River Ohio to the Place of
beginning.13

From that time the fortunes of the company rose and fell with
the success of the efforts made by Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of
State for the Colonies, to obstruct the project. Franklin, who
distrusted the Secretary, described him as 'the most insincere, and
the most wrong-headed" of all his acquaintances. Further, he
believed Hillsborough had deliberately attempted to sabotage the
land deal from the start. According to the philosopher,
Hillsborough "encouraged us [the Associates] to ask for more Land,
when we first ask'd only for 2,500,00 [the estimated size of
Indiana] Ask for enough to make a Province, were his Words,
pretending to be friend our Application . . . ." Secretly, he then
meant "to defeat" the petition 'from the beginning, and that his
putting us upon asking so much was with that very View, Supposing
it too much to be granted."14

Observers on the scene viewed the prospects of the company
optimistically. As early as January 1770, Abel James, a Quaker
merchant and varingly a rival or compatriot of the Whartons,
informed Baynton, "It is next to impossible that [Samuel's
negotiations] can miscarry." Walpole informed Joseph,
Junior, in November 1771 that it had "a fair chance of success."
That same month Samuel considered the contract with the Treasury to
be "fixed & irrevokable" (a thought echoed by Franklin) and the
only remaining complication, "The Policy of Settling," would be
resolved "during this Winter."15

Despite this bright outlook, Hillsborough's opposition at first
succeeded. Upon deliberation, the Commissioners of Trade and
Plantations in April 1772 reported negatively on the venture to the
Privy Council. They opposed the new proclamation line established
at Fort Stanwix and inland colonies in general as
counter-productive to the empire as an entity. Indeed, they
recommended that all settlements west of the original line of 1763
be forbidden or demolished and the decision enforced. In August,
however, the Privy Council ordered another study in light of the
proposal of a separate government for Vandalia. Walpole's spirited
defense of the company's memorial had caused them to reconsider.
Hillsborough's plan had backfired; his opposition to a large grant
had returned to haunt him. He fell from power to be replaced by the
Earl of Dartmouth. As Franklin explained it, "[H]is Mortification
becomes double. He had serv'd us by the very means to destroy us,
and tript up his own Heels into the Bargain." The next year the
Commissioners revised their stance and recommended that a new
colony be established with boundaries extended beyond those
requested. The new borders were moved further westward into what is
now Kentucky and the southern boundary coincided with the dividing
line between Virginia and North Carolina. The conditions of
granting the concession included a payment of £10,460:07:03
Sterling with annual quitrents of two shillings per each one
hundred acres beginning twenty years after the first
settlement.16 This was indeed a cheap price to pay for
the huge prospective benefits to be gained. The announcement
created great jubilation among the investors, but they had overcome
the foe in only one battle; the campaign remained to be won.

In America in the meantime, the stockholders, or proprietors as
Thomas Wharton habitually called them, eagerly anticipated the
colony's approval. As early as late in 1769 William Franklin had
formulated plans for the construction of forges and mills in
Vandalia. Morgan, excluded from Vandalia but still a holder of
stock in Indiana, proposed his moving west in the summer of 1772 to
arrange land surveys. He had received many inquiries concerning the
nature of the terrain there, but, despite his many journeys to the
west, he knew little about the lay of the land except for the plots
"bordering on the [Ohio] River." The timing was right for him "as
this seems to be a proper Season & a time of Liesure [sic]."
The opportunities for locating settlers also appeared to be
auspicious. The next year Christopher Rawson, Thomas' longtime
friend and commercial contact in Halifax, reported sending his son
to Philadelphia for his health and asked Wharton to give him
"directions respecting a purchase on the Ohio." Joseph Trumbull
from Connecticut wrote Wharton of his and his brothers' desires to
"go & settle on the Banks of the Ohio." Croghan encouraged
matters when he optimistically, and perhaps mischievously, relayed
the information that "there cant be less than 60000 Souls settled
between this place [Fort Pitt] & the mouth of that [Scioto]
River.17

Yet relations among the investors did not proceed entirely
smoothly. Individual greed complicated the scene. Stimulated by the
prospects for great wealth, Joseph, Senior, yearned to increase his
allotment of shares in the company. Perhaps recent events in
England had deluded him as to the extent of Samuel's influence, for
he believed Samuel's opposition to be the main cause of
Hillsborough's fall from grace. "The Grand Duke," a term commonly
used to describe Joseph, could not conceal his elation, and, as a
result, he irritated a few influential Philadelphians with his
"verey unbecoming aiers."18 For reasons which remain
unclear, William Franklin's holdings became his particular target.
Perhaps there was some personal animosity involved, for, after all,
Franklin's father had been one of Joseph's closest friends for
years; he had been one of the original members of the famed
Junto.

Unbeknownst to either Thomas or Joseph, Junior, "The Old Man"
sent one of the brothers to Franklin "to demand" that the governor
"sell [his] Share of the Lands on the Ohio" to Joseph, Senior.
Since the messenger was a stranger and did not identify himself,
Franklin indignantly refused. He later indicated that he would have
acted in a more gracious manner if he had known the courier's
identity, but he allowed that his answer would not have been
changed. Still, the unpleasant episode indelibly altered the
relationship between Franklin and Joseph, Senior, whom the New
Jerseyite described as "becom[ing] excessively absurb." His father
agreed, noting that the elder Wharton's act demonstrated "more
Craft than Friendship" and further commenting, "perhaps I resent it
as much as you do."19 Although Thomas took pride in
Samuel's accomplishments, and even though the latter had downgraded
Benjamin Franklin's important role in obtaining the Commissioner's
approval, the strong bonds between himself and both the Franklins
were not affected by this unseemingly incident.

Meanwhile, in England, plans for the new government proceeded at
a satisfactory pace. Samuel fully expected to be named the royal
governor of the province. Rumors of his appointment had circulated
there and in the colonies as early as mid-1770. At least at the
beginning, he anticipated operating out of Fort Pitt, and so he
asked Croghan to arrange for suitable quarters fashioned out of
existing houses or, if necessary, to be constructed. Samuel wanted
to hurry any decision, for a new potential menace to Vandalia had
arisen. To counter Virginia's activities on the frontier,
Pennsylvania planned to establish a new county, Westmoreland, west
of Bedford. The boundaries of the new county could possible affect
those of Vandalia. Samuel predicted, "It need not give us any
Uneasiness," but he did discuss the matter with several of the
investors and some government officials including Lord Camden,
Anthony Todd, and Thomas Pitt.20

The other main faction of Americans in the Vandalia project, the
Franks-Trent combination, also approved the progress demonstrated
so far. Bernard Gratz, a relative of the Franks, could hardly wait
for Samuel's return. He heartily approved of the plan then in the
hands of the Solicitor General which he had seen during a visit to
Thomas. As yet the proprietors, including prospective chief
executive, knew little about the geographical aspects of the
purchase. Samuel asked Thomas to investigate the land and, most
vital to the interests of all, determine the prices to be charged.
Morgan at that time had not reported on his reconnaissance as had
been expected. Later, however, the Whartons estimated that a fair
price might be twenty pounds (Pennsylvania) per hundred acres
though Morgan believed fifteen pounds would be more
realistic.21

Thomas also eagerly anticipated Samuel's return. He did not
wait, however, to spread information about Vandalia around the
colonies. He knew from his previous land deals that he had to
solicit customers from a wide audience. In one typical letter he
described the virtues of the area to Joseph Trumbull. Vandalia's
attractions were many, not least being "the Richness of the Land"
and "the Temperature [temperateness] of the Climate." He believed
many would enjoy living there, and he encouraged Trumball to find
"a Number of industrious, sober Families to settle
therein."22

Consolation of the Indians living or hunting in the area was
another major consideration of the company. For these activities
the investors learned considerably on the good will and the
services of Croghan at Fort Pitt, although he no longer enjoyed an
active association with the company. Croghan had always been
amazingly adept at dealing with the natives. In several instances
they had refused to deal with any other Englishman. Wharton sent
him £160 (Pennsylvania) in 1773 to buy presents and
provisions for the chiefs at a conference to be held there. Croghan
reported that the Indian leaders as a result had "returned to their
Habitations with much good Will toward the Province." Additional
support came from the Seneca Chief Kayasuta, whom Wharton aptly
described as a King, who traveled widely in the west, from Illinois
to Johnson Hill, spreading support for the company. In anticipation
of gaining final approval for Vandalia, the company officers
purchased various supplies and gifts to be presented upon Samuel's
arrival at his new domain. The goods, including gunpowder and lead
for bullets, were shipped to Georgetown, Maryland, in care of
Thomas. They never reached their intended recipients, but the
munitions later got the merchant into trouble with the Maryland
Committee of Safety.23

Rival interests in the west, however, clouded the issues and
slowed the recruitment of settlers. Virginia's efforts to enforce
her claim to the lands in Vandalia complicated the situation. In
November 1773 reports reached Thomas that George Washington was
surveying the valley of the Kanawha River, and he feared the Ohio
Company of Virginia would sell lands there at a cheaper rate than
Vandalia could. He asked Samuel to inquire into the possibilities
of opening a loan office so sales might begin. As the year
progressed he expected momentarily to hear of the grant's approval.
It was now under what seemed to him to be an interminable review by
the crown's attorneys. Moreover, Virginia's seizure of Fort Pitt
and its environs through the activities of Doctor John Connolly
really disturbed him. Pennsylvania protested Connolly's movements
(and later Lord Dunmore's) around the forks of the Ohio, but months
passed before the problem was resolved. Wharton perceived that
Vandalia could not become reality until the actions of the
executives of both provinces "will be confined to the limits of
their Colonies." That Connolly had the nerve to sell land within
the boundaries of Vandalia truly angered Wharton. He believed that
only final approval by the crown would end "The Annarchy &
Confusion . . . on our Frontiers." He dreaded that Connolly's
rampages and inciting of the Indians would lead to another border
war. In addition, another Virginian named Lewis sold lands within
the proposed province for "a small Consideration Which must hurt
them [the settlers whose titles were not clear] & abundently
[sic] Injure the Proprietors."24 Virginia's sale of land
within her own boundaries as described by her charter was at least
quasi-legal; her activities in the vicinity of Fort Pitt were both
illegal and immoral.

In America the affairs of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan became,
perhaps inevitably, entangled with the prospects for Vandalia.
Samuel's presence in London induced some Englishmen not involved
with Vandalia to seize a financial advantage. Abel James, a trustee
of the firm then in the capital city on business, warned Thomas in
1770 to watch out for Richard Neave, a British banker who had
served the needs of several Whartons, who wanted to collect monies;
due him. The English firm later did create considerable pain and
trouble for the trustees. Neave wanted all dividends from the
company and proceeds from the sale of Samuel's lands to go toward
paying his debts. Underlying his threats always lay the danger that
Samuel could be imprisoned as a debtor. By 1776 Neave had become at
least a minor stockholder in Indiana through absorption of Samuel's
shares.25 The resurrection of Baynton, Wharton and
Morgan provided one more reason for the Philadelphia investors to
hope for Vandalia's approval. At least one Londoner believed Samuel
would gain sufficient funds immediately "to discharge all the
Demands of Baynton & Wharton's Creditors" from the sale of
"Lands in the new Colony."26

Thomas, distracted as he was as an agent for the East India
Company, continued to pray for the grant through the exciting days
of the tea crisis of 1773. As the court attorneys delayed approval,
he began to suspect a conspiracy against the investors. He thought
some "secret and weighty opposers" influenced officials to
sidetrack Vandalia. Later he believed General Thomas Gage, who
opposed western immigration and inland colonies because they
incited the Indians, to be the chief culprit. In September 1774 he
discussed Lord Dunmore's exertions in the Ohio country with Patrick
Henry, then one of the delegates to the First Continental Congress.
The Virginian was convinced that the Indian war then being waged
was actually to the advantage of Vandalia. Dunmore, according to
Henry, wanted better lands north of the Ohio and appeared willing
to surrender the more mountainous areas. Henry also stated that
lawyers he had consulted confirmed the validity of the Vandalia
grant, and he thus approved any expansion for Virginia to be even
further to the west. This analysis must have surprised a naturally
suspicious Wharton who discounted Henry's version. He commented to
Croghan that Dunmore's interest probably derived "from a private
than Publick View."27

Over and above the legal delays, the business of obtaining final
approval for Vandalia proceeded slowly because of the nature and
habits of British officials. Samuel complained that the matter
could not even be discussed since key ministers absented themselves
from London for months at a time. He planned to publish a pamphlet
to counter arguments then current against the grant. In addition to
prevention of conflict with the Indians, the opponents argued that
limiting settlements to the seaboard would discourage establishment
of local manufactories, thus contributing to the efficiency of the
various Acts of Trade. Moreover, by preventing migration westward,
the labor supply would increase where it was most needed. Samuel
thought the arguments specious and "beyond all historical Example."
Regardless of the ultimate ministerial action on Vandalia, he
believed the movement of the population westward in America was
unstoppable. In October 1774 he thought a decision on the colony
had to be made that winter.28

Actually, the Vandalia affair simply drifted and finally faded
into obscurity with no decision being announced. Other events in
the relationship of Britain and her colonies simply dominated
discussions in Parliament and in the Privy Council. Open warfare
between colonials and British regular troops erupted in April 1775.
Thomas, who abhorred any thought of bloodshed, reluctantly accepted
the fact that more important and pressing considerations facing the
British ministers overshadowed Vandalia. The fantasy faded very
slowly from his thoughts, however, because it had come so close to
reality.

Samuel's thought began to turn elsewhere. In August he
visualized "little prospect of Harmony being speedily, if ever
restored between this Kingdom and America." He therefore focused
his attention on land he believed already legally theirs; Indiana.
He recommended that Thomas and Trent, who had recently returned to
Philadelphia, contact "Dr. Franklin & other members of
Congress" to obtain support for purchasers of land from Indian
nations. To speed approval from that body, Thomas should offer
one-half of a share in the company each to eight delegates. Thomas
approached the Congressmen with these bribes, no other word
suffices, and his efforts apparently got him into deep trouble, for
in 1777 Congress recommended that he be arrested as an enemy to his
state and be exiled to Virginia. One odd aspect of this situation
is that Samuel asked Benjamin Franklin for help. The philosopher
had evidently resigned from the Great Ohio Company at least a year
previous. Additionally, Samuel had commented to Croghan in 1773
that relations between them had deteriorated, and he thought
Franklin's reputation "mere Piff & Declamation." Regardless,
ten days after writing to Thomas, Samuel closed his accounts and
severed his business, if not his personal, relationship with his
English associates.29 For all practical purposes, this
step marked the end of the efforts to secure Vandalia. All that
remained was the allotment of the expenses involved among the other
investors.

Thomas and the survivors of the "suffering traders" did revive
the Indiana Company. They convened on March 20, 1776, at the Indian
Queen Tavern in Philadelphia and formed a new corporation for
selling the land. Those attending selected Joseph Galloway
president and Wharton vice president. They sent Morgan, by this
time embittered at all the Whartons since he and his father-in-law
Baynton had been excluded from Vandalia, to Fort Pitt to open a
land office and to sell tracts in Indiana. Croghan, also at that
frontier fort, had allied himself with Virginia during the Connolly
affair, a decision Samuel described as "exceedingly indiscreet." He
added, seeking additional justification for the defeat of the Grand
Ohio Company, that Croghan's actions "may have contributed to the
Delay of our Grants, And in the End will not be useful to Himself."
As an appended mission, the company assigned Morgan the task of
restoring Croghan's loyalty. All these undertakings soured when
Trent, the majority proxy holder, refused to attend the company's
general meeting at Philadelphia in the fall. His reluctance to
cooperate finished Thomas' practical hopes for riches from the
west, although to his deathbed in 1784 his visions lingered on. At
that moment he may have been content with Trent's decision. He
informed him,

Indeed my share is so very small that I am almost tired
being anyway further concerned - Its almost 8 years since I have
been a perfect drudge to SW & thyself, and I am desirous of
being much less so than heretofore -30

Attempts to rejuvenate the Indian grants of 1768 continued
spasmodically thereafter. The most earnest efforts may have been
those exerted by Benjamin Franklin and Samuel in the early 1780s
while the latter served as a delegate to Congress. The other
representatives hesitated to take any action, and Indiana fell by
the wayside again. All endeavors by the Whartons ceased when the
states forfeited their claims to the western lands as a condition
of entering the Union, and Virginia retained as part of the
commonwealth the lands encompassing both Indiana and Vandalia.

Thus the campaign to create a new colony, "the first West
Virginia," waned into oblivion. Not one of the involved parties
gained as a result, and many friendships were broken, some, as
viewed with hindsight, unnecessarily. Land competition in the west
caused Pennsylvania and Virginia almost to resort to the clash of
arms. Sir William Johnson's reputation tarnished because he
promoted the revised proclamation line of 1768. Baynton, Wharton
and Morgan underwent complete bankruptcy proceedings because of the
split among the partners over membership in the Grand Ohio Company.
Divided opinions for a time separated Samuel and Benjamin Franklin
when concerted action may have insured successful acceptance of
Vandalia. Greed influenced a break between Joseph, Senior, and both
Franklins. Perhaps the one most affected was Thomas who financed
Samuel in London and his family in Philadelphia, funds never
reimbursed during his lifetime. This loss, combined with the
collapse of his business during the War of American Independence,
placed him in deep financial distress at the time of his death.
There was only one winner, avarice, and that is by its very nature
a loser.

Notes

1. The most recent and comprehensive account of the Whartons is
James Donald Anderson. "Thomas Wharton, 1730/31-1784: Merchant in
Philadelphia" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of
Akron, 1977).

8. [Wharton.] Plain Facts, 71-72, 77-78, 84-87, italics
removed; Ray A. Billington, "The Port Stanwix Treaty of 1768."
New York History, XXV (1944), 184-92, who mistakenly places
Thomas at the conference. For a contemporary discussion of the
boundary problem, see S. Wharton to B. Franklin. September 30,
1767, Franklin Papers, XIV, 257-60. For a first hand account
of the meeting, see same to same, December 2, 1768, ibid.,
XV, 275-79.

12. See references, note 11. G. Morgan to S. Wharton, April 24,
1772, Baynton, Wharton and Morgan Papers (microfilm ed.
Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1967).
reel 1 (hereafter BWM Papers); bond, Croghan to T. Wharton
and J. Galloway. December 10, 1768, Wharton-Willing Col., HSP. For
a flavor of the intrigue involved, see Jack M. Sosin, Whitehall
and the Wilderness (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1961), 187-88. The Indians had granted to Croghan vast tracts of
land in New York and western Pennsylvania in addition to his share
of Indiana in 1768. 13. Byers, B. and M. Gratz, 345; S.
Wharton to T. Wharton and J. Galloway, April 7, 1773, Franklin
Papers, American Philosophical Society (hereafter APS); Agreement
to admit the Ohio Company as Copurchaser with the Grand Ohio
Company, May 7, 1770; Memorial, Thomas Walpole, et al., to
the Right Honorable the Lords Commmissioners of His Majesty's
Treasury, January 4, 1770, Franklin Papers, XVII, 9-11, 136.
The Whartons involved were Thomas, Samuel, Charles, Joseph, Sr.,
and Joseph, Jr. A complete list of the investors in Vandalia can be
found in K. G. Davies, ed., Documents of the American
Revolution, 1770-1783 (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972-
), V, 309.

19. W. Franklin to B. Franklin, April 30, 1773; B. Franklin to
W. Franklin. July 14, 1773, ibid., XX. 184-85, 306. The
identity of the Wharton son can only be surmised, but, since W.
Franklin knew all the elder brothers, one can presume he was either
Carpenter or Robert.